Not the news I was expecting but kind of a cool way to address a variety of issues, like obesity, imports from US, generating revenue, subsidizing a national crop, etc.
Don’t hold your breath, the Mexican government makes the American government under Republican rule seem competent. Just like how the American government is bought and paid for by corporations, the Mexican government is bought and paid for by the cartels.
For reference, this is the legal definition in France (which still allows for some shitty chocolate BTW) :
_Chocolat :
a) Désigne le produit obtenu à partir de produits de cacao et de sucres contenant, sous réserve du point b, pas moins de 35 % de matière sèche totale de cacao, dont pas moins de 18 % de beurre de cacao et pas moins de 14 % de cacao sec dégraissé._
Rough translation:
Chocolate is the product obtained from cocoa and sugars which shall contain no less (although see point b) than 35% of dry cocoa solids including 18% cocoa butter and 14% dry degreased cocoa.Point b covers specialty chocolates, such as guanduja, etc.
Full text here(fr)
substitute the milk then it’ll be cheaper and healthier
Why does this post read like some kind of advertising bot posted it
Because we are used to anytime someone mentions a product name, they were paid to do so.
But this is just an interesting and useful government intervention to correct a capitalism-derived problem.
It’s more then mentioning the product name, the whole bit going on making it sound organic and shit screams sales read
Well, with it being a “relatively” healthy alternative to excessively refined sugar based chocolates, stressing that it is better to eat than American chocolate is pretty important. The idea is to sell it to the populace effectively enough that the reduction in medical spending outweighs or strongly supplements the manufacturing cost.
So it is also kind of an ad in that sense. Just not written for eyes outside of Mexico.
Vanilla?!? Disgusting
how are the labor practices
Better than the US.
Oh they pay wages that accommodate people buying homes in US cities?
What? Why would a job in Mexico pay enough to live in the US… That makes no sense. Cost of living isn’t even the same across the US.
Does the US?
In some places. If they’re better than the US the answer should be mostly yes.
I realize it’s a disingenuous argument but the problem with the US isn’t as much about wages. It’s about cost of living and cost of everything, and our government is to blame.
So your argument is everyone in the us owns houses in cities so they have better labor practices than Mexico?
Nice strawman. The strategy of the incompetent.
In US cities??? This is in Mexico lol
If the labor practices are better than the US they should be able to buy houses in the US. I’m not the one who claimed it was better than the US.
LMAO when did buying a fuckin house in the US become some kind of gold standard? In the country where they rip you off wherever you go. I swear to God Americans are so self centered and need to measure everything based on themselves.
The average cost of a house in Mexico is way lower than it is in the U.S., why the fuck would they want or need to buy a house in a Nazi country?
Would you choose to be able to feed/house yourself and be safe from preventable dangers, or buy a house in the US? If good labour practice means the latter and not the former, then I don’t believe it’s a good metric on which to evaluate their chocolate.
48 hours a week is better?
Don’t have to piss in a bottle.
But we DO have Amazon Warehouses in Mexico!
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t Mexico to sell chocolate but why are they thinking this is part of their job as government??
Governments subsidize foods all the time. Yours probably does, too.
Mexico already has Welfare Stores, and this bar is being made in co-op with Food for Wellness.
I’m barely old enough to remember government cheese.
Because they tried leaving it to the private sector and people got unhealthy from eating cheap refined carbs?
I don’t Mexico to sell chocolate
Well I do Mexico to sell chocolate.
Comedy aside, I think its to address the extraordinary obesity issues that Mexico has faced in the past 20 years. Mexico is in my top 2 of countries I’m moving to as the US collapses, but they have real issues with refined foods and especially added sugar.
What’s your other top 2 country? If I go I think I’m going to switch continents. I would prefer there to be a whole ocean between me and this bullshit.
If you come to europe i hope you didn’t vote for one of the genociders.
We don’t like your kind
Yes I know, and you shouldn’t. I voted for everyone who was against Trump.
I might just stay here and start building guillotines.
You’ll pay tarrifs for foreign parts but you can easily offset those because of the increasing demand
Brazil is in the conversations. Mainly for professional reasons and because they do still invest in the kinds of science that my partner and I do, and I have many colleagues there and some family near Rio.
The other is Tahiti, because I’ve got a pretty substantial Vanilla production operation going at this point, which was kind-of the entire point of why I moved to where I did. I also have access to EU citizenship through my mother, and I as far as a visa to live and work in the country, I think that part should be straight forwards since its basically France. My partner and I also have some connections to the university, University of French Polynesia. My partner has also previously worked for CNRS in Toulouse, although briefly. Buying land might be out of reach because its ridiculously expensive, but I can imagine various ways of making it happen.
We’re seriously considering some option at this point, but its very tough because we moved to where we live because this is where we wanted to live. We’ve also got a wide range of “things” going on that are difficult, but not impossible, to disentangle ourselves from.
Big warning on moving to Brazil for science. Getting lab materials takes forever to get delivered and frequently just never arrives. I had a roommat do her last year of PhD research in the us because work was so much faster here due to how much better and more reliable logistics are.
I mean thats a great consideration. Luckily for me, I’m more on the pure computation/ analysis side of the house. I don’t really do wet chemistry any more, although my partner does.
Good info. France and Norway are appealing, I have a friend with family over there who likes me. The Netherlands is on my list as well, I’ve been there a few times and they don’t currently have any political drama that I’m aware of.
Yeah I can’t do anything above 22 degrees or below -22 degrees. I mean its right there in the name.
Oh boy, there is political drama here in the Netherlands right now.
The most right wing party in the coalition stepped out of the government because the other parties refused to sign its “strictest immigration policy ever”, so we’re heading towards elections again. Meanwhile parliament approved a law making being an illegal resident or helping one a crime. It needs to pass through the senate yet, but still. The minister of agriculture was found by a judge to abuse her power to obstruct freedom of information. There’s still no plan to solve the nitrogen pollution crisis, leading to building projects being on hold throughout the country. Against their promise of not drilling for gas in the northern province of Groningen anymore they’ve allowed it again, leading to more earthquakes. A singer was accused of antisemitism by politicians because he refused to play at a gig that had posters promoting Zionism, which led to him having to flee the country with his family because of death threats. Don’t speak out against Israel here either. There were border patrols done by a group of “activists” looking for illegals (“we found no brown people or anyone looking like that” they said), which were small and luckily stopped, but still. Then there are the government cuts in all social sectors, killing all services slowly over the years. Public transport, education, healthcare, municipal services, welfare, it’s all going downhill. And while the government still has to pay back thousands of parents it had wrongly accused of daycare fraud, the next screw-up was discovered a few months ago and they now also have to pay thousands of people on welfare for being sick because they had underpaid them for years.
The election campaign is probably gonna be a bunch of screaming matches about immigrants and refugees and name calling again even though there are far more pressing issues going on. It’s not as fascist here as it is in the US yet, but that’s only because we have a more reasonable electoral system.
Mexico is 25th on this list with 36.1% of its population obese. The US is 13th at 42.9%.
Yeah well, Mexico is #1 on this list. I don’t even see the US on the list.
Shit I hadn’t even considered that. Glad I know now
Mexico has been trying a lot to reduce obesity through various product labeling. This looks like a step in that direction; a snack that uses an indigenous ingredient (chocolate) in a manner that complies with federal guidelines.
I did notice that the Mexican coke that I occasionally buy as a treat (in the US) got new labels printed on the bottle instead of just a sticker.
For some reason it doesn’t taste as good as it used to though. Feels like even more sugar than previously maybe? I should look it up.
You mean Mexico made certain Goods MORE Expensive but then Offered a Public alternative so people don’t HAVE to pay the Increase in Price?
That’s STUPID! They should just Slap a TARIFF on it WITHOUT Investment or Alternatives and let their Citizens deal with the Price increase!
They could be making their businesses “eat” the tariffs, but instead their people are eating good chocolate? That’s it, I’m heading down there, I’m sold.
I don’t follow Mexican politics closely, but this could be part of an effort to curb obesity. I’ve heard they introduced taxes on sugary drinks for this, so this might be another avenue.
If people are wanting cheap snacks, and private companies are only making unhealthy ones, you can introduce regulations to micromanage what they can produce, or you can introduce a complex taxation process to disincentivize sugar snacks. Or you can introduce your own product that meets a perceived unmet demand in an underserved market.
It is. They’ve got you conditioned to accept that government is just there to hurt you, it’s supposed to make society worth living in.
If I had to guess, it’s likely due to the obesity problem they were having
Citizen morale is probably the most important job of government but people like you want to make us forget that
Cacao is a national treasure, and America floods Mexico with Hershey’s, Snickers, and other subpar “chocolate” and destroys local competition with cheap prices.
Fun fact:
The word “chocolate” is derived from the Nahuatl word Xocholatl (chikola-tl).
Government is the things we choose to do together. If the people choose healthy chocolate, then that’s the job.
Totally agree, didn’t mean to apply i’m against it but it just felt random. Thought maybe they were inspired by the donalds merchandise ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Providing healthy abordable food should be the first job of any governement.
Chocolate is candy, not food
Chocolate is food and is used in some Mexican sauces. It just happens to be that the most typical modern use is chocolate is in candy.
Try chocolate that wasn’t made in America… Then imagine living a country with some of the best ingredients for chocolate making, and only seeing American chocolate on your store shelves… If capitalism is breaking stuff, the government is pretty much the only ones that can fix it. Though when the government is the thing that capitalism is breaking, I can see why you might not want them to do more than they currently do.
Government is supposed to be about pooling money so it can be more efficiently and effectively spent. Economies of scale. Even if the government only half does what you want and half does stuff you don’t care about, you are still getting better bang for your buck than if you tried to use your own tiny amounts of money to buy the half you do want.
Try chocolate that wasn’t made in America…
I’m actually very fond of the US but the chocolate is absolute filth, sorry lads. I was so excited to try Hershey’s and holy moly was it an earth shattering disappointment.
Born and bred in America and won’t eat American chocolate - literally tastes like vomit. And I do mean literally - Hershey’s chocolate goes through a process called lipolysis that breaks down their milk some and introduces butyric acid, which gives Parmesan, sour cream and other pungent dairy foods (and vomit) their smells.
When they perfected the process so it didn’t happen anymore, people stopped buying their chocolate as it ‘tasted funny’ now and they started adding it artificially
Literally stockholm syndromed into enjoying the flavor of vomit…
No wonder our country is fucked, it was founded by morons
Right… Well that’s some insight. Thank you . I heard a rumour that it was down to it being popular during a war where cocoa was in short supply but that makes sense too.
There’s more American chocolate than just Hersey. This is like saying american burgers are filth because McDonalds exists.
There is. That’s fair, and some of it was decent and that’s not to say that all American chocolate is bad because that would be stupid of course, as you say. And I’m sure there’s top notch American chocolate. Of course there is.
But, the dominant chocolate, the one that foreigners associate with the US, was shite IMO. That’s all.
And tbh I do like an oul’ mackers. I wouldn’t call McDonald’s the Hershey’s of burgers.
This is all subjective and I’m not being a cunt. I just was expecting sparkles in my mouth and I got… Hershey’s.
Fair, fair. And I may not agree with your take on Micky Dees, but goddamn I respect it!
High five from the far side of the Atlantic at 1:36am and not entirely sober ✋
Cheers mate 🤚
Yeah, that’s exactly what they’re talking about, did you not read the rest of that post?
I only eat US made chocolate. Good stuff. Sometimes I’m tempted to buy some German garbage like Ritter Sport out of nostalgia from living there but then I slap myself and remember I don’t have to eat out of a trash can.
That might be one of the best bang par buck moves possible from their health care department.
so when do we see nestle/mars/whoever try to kill this?
It starts with a right-wing conspiracy fueled media ecosystem, I imagine the “best” minds are already working on that
Ehhh I mean I don’t see how. Nestlé is the absolute scum of the fucking earth, but idk what they could do to stop the Mexican government. Nestlé’s a bunch of fuckers, the lot of them, but they’re not going to sell stuff cheaply or at a loss.
Is Nestle above paying cartels for killings? That seems like it’d be right up their alley.
chaquita overthrew governments back in the day
I’m Chiquita banana and I’m here to say,
Violence and killing is our only way
But has 3 seals, what the fuck.
This is a really neat system for making your uneducated populace healthier. People can’t be bothered to read so a single number to indicate something is unhealthy is rad.
Now I don’t really know that much about their system, but I would assume that almost every sweet would get at least one seal unless it’s made very healthy and not a sweet anymore? I don’t really speak Spanish, but in the link you sent there is an illustration of a girl smiling and holding a bag of cookies with two seals and with sparkles on the bag. Maybe the point is to choose the ones with fewer seals, and not to try to go for none?
You are right! The less seals the better, and we do activily look for products that have less than 3 seals. This being a “healthy product” with 3 seals is a red flag, because there are non healty products that do have 3 seals too. May be 2 seals can be more acceptable, but 3?? Non-sugar Coca-Cola has 0 seals, it only has labels, which says that the product have caffeine and endulcorants.
Edit: I post the Coca-Cola example to make you see the irony, because is real.
I see! Wow, sugarfree Coca-cola has no labels!? Yeah I guess it wouldn’t get any of those five but I would never say it’s healthy. Maybe they should revise the standards for the labels, especially if they’re gonna make a snack marketed as healthy that gets 3 seals. Seems like being made from natural ingredients (such as cane sugar instead of sweeteners) and without flavorants or colorants (opposite of what Zero Coke did to not get any labels) is one of the big selling points of this chocolate bar, so perhaps it would be a good idea to account for this with the seals somehow. But then people might think the government is just changing the standards to their conveniences so I don’t really know.
Removed by mod
My guess is check for people to start reselling it within a few months tha
Not to be outdone, Trump had the following announcement from the White House:
“Today, the USA introduced its new chocolate bar, priced at over $10. Made of 0% cocoa, hydrogenated corn syrup, and trans fats. No natural ingredients, no milk, no vanilla. It’s bigly on flavor and very, very, tasty. We are taking pre-orders now at USAChocolate.gov.”
It must be packaged in a gold wrapper.
Are you sure they would use TRANS fats?
Since the traitors actually cut funding for transgenic scientific study because they don’t know what trans means, this is in the realm of realistic. That’s where we’re at.
They mean the rendered fat of the trans people they’re planning to kill on an individual scale. Only half of that statement was a joke btw.
Oh god why did I read that as trump fats 🤮
The MAGA candy bar on a stick in a gold wrapper $49.99. On a stick because it is for suckers.
on a stick because it is for suckers
Excellent.
I’m remembering an episode of Doug where they were trying to sell chocolate bars that nobody wanted, with the running gag of them still having last year’s bar as a door stop and then at the end of the episode, we are shown that some random series of coicendences had a concrete mixer dumping concrete into the chocolate, explaining why they were so hard and heavy (and inedible).
I can’t help but think Trump’s chocolate would be the same, but the concrete is purposefully there and not just by accident.
If we’re using the hersey model, it would be 50% castor oil, and 50% butyric acid.
HAHAHA and they say having healthcare makes you feel freedom
bites into injection molded PFAS chocolate bar
They have NO idea what freedom tastes like.
spits out chewed candy bar
The best part is if you get the app subscription you can refill the taste for the next time you chew on it!
Oh, and it’s gold. Not the wrapper, I mean, that is too, but the chocolate is a solid metallic gold color, like you are literally biting into a gold bar. It tastes nothing like chocolate.
50% is a little low for my taste. I wish it was more like 40 60 80. I’d be going for the 80. Or maybe just 50 & 70. I can live with 70.
I’m pretty sure this is being aimed at broke kids and parents so there are sacrifices
You have the privilege of being able to afford artisanal sea salt fair trade dark chocolate squares in a shiny foil bag, let these kids have a treat ok?
Others say it’s to fight chiodhood obesity, kids dont tend to like dark/good chocolate.
Idk, my kids love dark chocolate but also I hate milk chocolate so they haven’t had much of it.
Well your spawn have unusually good taste. This is not normal.
Love that dark chocolate 😍
Same! But children are usually dumb and bad and wrong re:chocolate.
I’m an adult and I don’t like dark chocolate either. It’s like coffee in a bar form; bitter and disgusting.
Well you’re free to be objectively wrong and a subhuman milk chocolate loving freak.
I mean, you might not be, but you should be.
I can’t hear you over the sound of my civilised cup of tea. :V
Microwaved like the aristocracy I’m certain.
Microwaved!? You insult me!
Do you take me for one of those rebellious, rowdy colonists? What were they called again… Americans?
Well at least you got that one right.
Over a certain percentage, I bite into chocolate and it just sucks all the moisture out of my mouth and is just terrible bitterness. I think 86% was the last one I tried, but even 50% is getting to be too bitter for me. I was always super sensitive to bitter compounds as a kid, though, so that may make sense. I do actually like black coffee of some beans/roasts, but it doesn’t have nearly as much bitterness.
I’d love to have a taste.
Too bad I live in Northern Europe…probably not worth buying via the Internet even if it was possible…
Not objecting, but what is the motivation of the Mexican government to do this? Have they done similar things before?
I don’t think they’ve done something exactly like this, but they have aggressively tackled obesity in recent years, going as far as labeling all foods with excess fats, salt, and sugar. It’s very visible on the package and it does influence what I buy.
But this is the way I found out we’re doing this now. 😅
But also I think because all the existing cocoa producers are evil enslavers. This will help something like 1800 Mexican farmers.
Nestle is notoriously evil - I’m hoping Mexico can compete
The only thing that EU has yet to stiff-arm on.
they have aggressively tackled obesity in recent years
Actually doing something? Good on them!
Government should probably provide the cheapest food and set the standard.
However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.
If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability. Government correction becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?
Less profits for shareholders? And that is unacceptable!
/s
Uhh what?
It’s called competition. Having a competitor in the market who’s goal is to keep people fed instead of making money hand over fist would both bring prices down and bring quality up on higher priced items.
If we have to do capitalism, let’s get some not-for-profit competition happening.
In an ideal world, yes that would be the competition. However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts. Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.
Well if another company can go lower, it inherently implies they are skimping somewhere so quality is lost or regulations circumvented. Any government correction can overstep.
Go start your not-for-profit competition. Farm for yourself, grow crops at home, reduce your footprint. Find community in your neighborhood.
However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts.
Yes, and yes, but why are either of these a bad thing? Cheap, good quality food seems like a good thing to me.
Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.
If the British provided cheap food, they could actually have avoided the Bengal famine. (Unless you mean some other fuckup I’m not aware of.)
However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.
Issues for who? The consumer? Or the capitalists?
If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability.
It would hint that it’s a shitty product, presuming no foul play by the government and the product is not overpriced (doesn’t appear to be).
Government correction becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?
Government correction how? From suppression I think you mean lowering their price? The scenario you’re laying out doesn’t make sense.
The point of this kind of product is to be the baseline, no capitalist should be able to afford to offer the same product for less, because the government already has the lowest possible margin.
You start by making a better product, and you can charge whatever people decide the improved product is worth. It’s a good thing that an asshole capitalist can’t market a $7 bar of chocolate when a very good quality one is $1. At that price difference, your chocolate better be amazing.
So focused on hate and want you only see the consumer and capitalist, but not the worker’s back. However, all three shall crumble under such a fumble.
The lower price would mean lower quality traditionally yes, but also implies cost cutting measures beyond that. Then creating regulation as a governance is expected the lowest prices. Did they circumvent regulations, taxes, etc.
Government correction can overextend their force with control of the fields and markets. Just look at the farming or fiahing history in most nations who had regulated government contracts.
The point of this kind of product is to be the baseline, no capitalist should be able to afford to offer the same product for less, because the government already has the lowest possible margin.
HENCE, how could a capitalist compete, leaving only inferior or circumvention of regulations. Needing recitifying. Over extension of power leads to suppression of the workers, field owners, and consumers. With capitalism winning.
Your last paragraph is ludicrous, start by making a better product. Reflecting in cost and raising the value of the product reaching the end user. Antithetical to your previous point.
You have so little experience with the pain of the world that you can only dream your comforts.
So what does suppression of the people lead to?
This meaningless, conceited ramble could have been more effective simply by pointing out that state industry can force an unfair competition simply by subsidizing its products with tax revenue, hiding the actual costs and potentially forcing any rivals out of business even easier than private industry can.
Thank you for joining me in the conceited side for thinking your point is more correct.
They work in tandem, but no one who is good can agree on what is good. Only on what is bad.
So focused on hate
Cope better. There was no hate.
The lower price would mean lower quality traditionally yes
No no no, it’s not lower quality, it’s just not luxury. It’s better than the $5 Hershey bars available to you in the US. This is not a law of economics, it’s a capitalist assumption. Lower prices can mean lower quality in for-profit contexts because companies cut costs to maximize profit. But in a nonprofit, state-run model, the goal is different: providing a high-quality public good at an accessible price. This is a de-commodification of a necessity or cultural staple. Chocolate in Mexico has deep indigenous and historical roots.
Then creating regulation as a governance is expected the lowest prices. Did they circumvent regulations, taxes, etc.
I don’t know, did they?
The insinuation here is that the government is cheating the system. But if the government is the one setting or adapting the regulations, this is not circumvention, it’s governance. State-run enterprises often don’t need to chase profit margins because their revenue model isn’t extractive.
HENCE, how could a capitalist compete
Correct, that’s the point. The state provides a baseline to protect people from price-gouging and artificial scarcity. Capitalists can compete, but they must add value, not by suppressing wages or cutting quality, but by genuine innovation or diversification.
This is similar to how public healthcare in many countries sets a baseline: if private healthcare wants to exist, it must offer more, not extract more.
Over extension of power leads to suppression of the workers, field owners, and consumers. With capitalism winning.
This is incoherent nonsense. Capitalism “winning” through the suppression of workers is not a bug; it’s a feature. State efforts to offer goods affordably often arise precisely to counteract capitalist suppression.
The idea that public chocolate production suppresses workers more than Nestlé or Hershey’s, companies with notorious labor violations, is laughable.
You have so little experience with the pain of the world that you can only dream your comforts.
That’s just a rhetorical grenade, you’re not engaging with what I said, you’re trying to discredit me personally. And honestly, it’s frustrating. You’re implying that lived suffering and collective solutions can’t go hand in hand, but that’s just not true. Some of the fiercest, most committed advocates for public goods come from deep struggle, especially across the Global South.
The hate was you focusing on the profiteers, and want was you focused on consumers. However the product must go from a to b. Then b to c. Etc. Workers are a key aspect of this process and most people ignore this.
Chocolate in mexico does have deep indigenous and historical roots. However this is not why it’s so big, it’s massive due to a bunch of exploitation of the region. It’s why Mexico has only sorta been at peace since the 1980s. I have studied greatly how white supremacists funded some of our state conflicts. Literally the KKK.
Anyways, you are too focused on the chocolate example when I never really talked about it. All I am saying is this is good, however I can also see it growing corrupt by forfeiting too much to the governance. Going back around from one capitalist structure to the next. State efforts to counteract start one way, I am saying they always end the same. Power corrupts.
Anyways, my point is the people will rise if they are suppressed. What goes up must come down, as above so below.
However, you have too much faith in governance, for yours has not taken from you humanity.
I appreciate you clarifying, there’s more we agree on than not.
You’re absolutely right to emphasize the role of workers in the chain. The process from A to B to C doesn’t function without their labor, and too often, they’re rendered invisible in both capitalist and state narratives. That’s a vital reminder. Any left project that doesn’t center workers, from land to factory to distribution, loses its soul. And you’re right: the roots of chocolate’s prominence today aren’t just cultural, they’re exploitative. The commodity’s journey is soaked in colonial extraction, and in many ways, that legacy persists.
Your mention of white supremacist funding and KKK ties to regional destabilization is important. I don’t doubt it. U.S. foreign policy, especially in Latin America, has long served as a tool for white capitalist expansion, from the School of the Americas to paramilitary support. That history deserves more light, not less.
Now, on the worry about corruption and state overreach, I hear you. The cycle you’re pointing to is real: revolutionary governments co-opted, bureaucracies bloated, the people once again crushed beneath a new elite. But here’s where we may differ: I don’t have blind faith in governance. I have faith in people. And that includes the right of people to shape their governments, to build horizontal structures of power, to hold any institution accountable, whether it wears a suit or a state badge.
Power can corrupt, but it also depends on how it’s held. When governance is democratized, truly democratized, not just through ballots but through councils, unions, communal ownership, it doesn’t have to recreate capitalist hierarchies. Projects like Zapatista autonomy in Chiapas or Rojava in Syria show that state and market aren’t the only models. People can create something else if they have the space.
Your closing line hits hard. Maybe I do have more faith than you in the potential of governance, not because mine hasn’t taken from me, but because I believe in reclaiming what it has. Governance should serve, not rule. If it rules, it’s time to resist. And if people rise when they’re suppressed, then so be it. I stand with them.
Don’t bother trying to correct them. They are convinced its a bad idea because its what they would do if they were in power.
Reducing obesity.
With a chocolate bar? I see it has less refined sugar, but it could still have the same amount of sugar.
When reducing unhealthy food in your diet, having less-bad alternatives to the unhealthy thing you’re craving can be a big help as your metabolism adjusts to the new diet.
For a personal example I’ve been greatly reducing sugar in my diet and sometimes I just crave something sweet. I’ve found ice cream to be the least sugary option, and I consume less sugar by having a bowl of ice cream than I would by having a few chocolates. My wife has a significant soda drinking habit and when she really craves a soda she’s been turning to the Poppi and Olipop sodas as less-bad alternatives
Yikes, ice cream is one of the worst things you could be eating, super high calorie density and extremely high fat content. Here is a far better ice cream alternative that can be made at home.
refined sugars are processed by the digestive system faster and are turned to fat.
Processed or not, sugar is only turned to fat in the body if it is 1) fructose, or 2) more than what you need. Every cell in our bodies can store sugar in the form of glycogen. If our glycogen stores are low, any consumed sources of sugar will be enzymatically broken down, the fructose converted in our liver, and the glucose converted to glycogen and circulated in our blood to replenish the rest of our stores. Then after this process the excess will be converted to fat.
As for fatty acids themselves, they generally go to our muscles first if needed, and then the rest fills our fat cells.
They sneak in just a little of that fentanyl. It’s to die for.
Americans have such a shitty life that they’re addicted to drugs and can’t stop buying them, but sure, it’s Mexicans sneaking it in.
